LIBERTARIANS: Not necessarily "racist" or "sexist," but close enough.
DonkeyDude said 04/15, 02:55 PM
Libertarianism is premised upon the principle that the government should not interfere with private enterprise. The idea is that the free market works perfectly. Because government should not interfere with private contracts or private behavior, Libs are opposed to the following governmental acts:
1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Libs believe that private discrimination is OK. Truly, the rights that the Libertarian is concerned with are the "rights" of a racist store owner, for example, to hang a "No Jews or dogs" sign in the store window. "No blacks need apply." I invite anyone who thinks our country would be a better place without such anti-discrim. laws to say so.
2. Social services of any kind. Now, welfare and other serivces can be abused and should be more tightly regulated, but Libs would do away with these services entirely. Those who are born into impoverished families/communities (or abusive households) are just out of luck. Hereditary advantage is a reality; deal with it.
Of course, most Libs are relatively privileged white men. Not necessarily racists or sexists, but they are narrow-minded elitists who fail to appreciate certain harsh realities that affect others.
theandrewwest said 04/16, 02:51 PM
In the interest of fairness, I had four votes before ever posting my counter-argument. That is, four votes I didn't explicitly earn.
Now then, let me attempt to carve an argument I can refute out of what is, in fact, a non sequitur.
1. "The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Libs believe that private discrimination is OK." Conservative Libertarians (such as the late Barry Goldwater) took issue with the Civil Rights Act, not due to racism, but because it forced bigoted business owners into a relationship they were going to resent. However, Libertarians (again, such as Goldwater) took issue almost exclusively with Title II. Title I, II, IV, and VII were non-issues. In Goldwater's own words, "You can't legislate morality".
2. "Social services of any kind. Now, welfare and other serivces can be abused and should be more tightly regulated, but Libs would do away with these services entirely." Strict Libertarians would privatize social services, not "do away with them".
However, I don't really have to refute you point by point. You haven't put forth any evidence other than gross hyperbole that Libertarians are "not necessarily 'racist' or 'sexist' but close enough".
DonkeyDude said 04/16, 04:40 PM
Lib positions:
1) Unrestricted freedom of speech - including pornography. Don't let the government pass laws keeping porn away from kids. Nevermind that it sexualizes them earlier, and in a misogynistic way (see the effects of prolific porn exposure on the male psyche). This also includes hate speech, which has been demonstrated to increase occurrence of hate crimes
2) Full de-regulation of commerce. Monopoly profits, discriminatory hiring? Fine. Free trade is ideal, domestic industry be damned
3) End public schooling. All schools will be private. Can't afford it? Let's hope private charity will take care of all poor children's needs
4) Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, FEMA, Economic Development Admin., Federal Home Loan system, the Civil Rights Act, children's social workers and welfare programs. Let's hope private charity sufficiently helps the victims of discrimination and tragic circumstances
5)Concealed weapons? Automatic assault weapons? Fine! No laws should govern ownership and carrying of guns (see numerous case studies on guns and crime, esp in poor areas)
6) Stop all foreign aid. Maybe charity will help prevent millions from dying of AIDS or genocide...
theandrewwest said 04/18, 04:05 PM
1. Rather than government monitoring what minors are exposed to, parents could supervise their children. In the end, it's the parents responsibility. On "hate speech", do you think an individual's right to subscribe to beliefs, ignorant as they may be, is valid and should be protected? The right to discuss these beliefs? The beliefs may be politically incorrect, but should it be the government's job to decide which ideas are valid and which should be silenced?
2. Domestic industry may be damned, but it's not a racist ideal. You mention discriminatory hiring to suggest as much, as if it's a non-issue now. Discriminatory hiring exists, Libertarians only suggest the government leave business owners to their own businesses.
3. Public education needn't be government-funded education. Though I don't see the relevance to the debate.
4. Because the government is doing such a good job of it now?
5. What is your point here? That a wide availability of guns is discriminatory toward the poor, so Libertarians must hate the poor?
6. Has foreign aid even met that goal yet?
But what are we debating? The practical application of Libertarian ideology? That's not the topic you set forth.
DonkeyDude said 04/18, 04:55 PM
As explained in my comments (below), my point is that the Libertarian ideology is not a thinly veiled front for a racist/sexist agenda, but its main tenets (if ever applied) would have a disparate impact on minorities and women. Libs tend to have a Social Darwinist approach to the resolution of the country's social and economic issues, without due regard for the fact that not everyone has the opportunity to realize the American Dream.
Yes, parents should take care of and properly supervise their kids. But that doesn't negate the need for social workers in some cases, and nor does it mean it is right to expose kids to certain forms of unprotected speech.
Foreign aid and intervention aren't perfect solutions, but they have some impact. You hold them to in irrelevant standard. To say "screw 'em" is, frankly, rooted in disregard for other peoples.
Same with FEMA, the EDA, etc. Not perfect, but they do help.
Re: guns, your attitude might be different if your exposure to guns was living in a crime-ridden community (in which minorities, per capita, tend to live).
So again, we're not talking about racist/sexist ideals. Just the fact that Lib philosophy reflects a naive indifference.
theandrewwest said 04/23, 04:06 AM
I understand your point. However, to single out Libertarianism as having a disparate impact on minorities and women if ever put into practical effect ignores the disparate impact so many other sociopolitical ideologies had and have on women and minorities.
Unfortunately, women and minorities are largely treated inferior to white men regardless of political climate or house majority. I think it may be more accurate to say... "Western Society: Not Necessarily 'racist' or 'sexist', but close enough" because that is what history tells us. Not according to speculation or conjecture - what 300 years of history in this country alone tells us.
The need for social workers and the topic of censorship are two separate debates.
Foreign aid and intervention aren't perfect solutions, you're right - And private charity has, in fact, helped millions. Paid for by volunteer donors- not taxpayers.
Again, you're right. The programs aren't perfect - maybe there are better alternatives out there?
Guns - That's still rather speculative. You're saying Libertarians are biased against minorities because they oppose government regulation of firearms.
Most politics seem to reflect naivete.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Donkeydude, man you're a piece of work. I'm a libertarian, and guess what I'm not privileged in any way! I came from a poor school and community, I've worked since I was 14, and I'm about to finish my undergraduate degree and head off to law school all on hard work and student loans. So now that your theory is blown out of the water, let's move on. A little history lesson for you, before minimum wage African Americans had the (lowest)unemployment rate. But after the government decided to make a minimum wage, they had the highest! So in fact the government put a discriminatory policy into effect. Business owners want the best workers they can get. When you make a company hire a less qualified candidate on the basis of race, you are the one making race an issue. You are putting skin color ahead of productivity. Without all the government regulations, a business could invest more (capital accumulation-look it up), which would drive up productivity (that increases workers wages), and hire more workers. Please sit back and think about how your argument has no factual basis. You are the epitome of the causes of discrimination, racism, and hatred in this country. Everyday people such as yourself brew more hate and animosity than any ignorant person who is racist ever could!
ShawnF | 04/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
DonkeyDude/Shawn, the ACLU also supports all of the same things you just accused Libertarians of being discriminatory for supporting---particularly the rights of racist or anti-semitic store owners to exercise free speech in their own private facilities.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
DonkeyDude is right; Libertarians love to blame everything on the government. Racism isn't a product of a majority that looks down on a stigmatized, lower-socioeconomic-class group... it's the government's fault! All you have to do is take away the government's influence, and all of the sudden everybody will be happy and prosperous, and everybody will be equal! Retarded.
God's Son | 04/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
Shawn: My post read "most Libertarians," not "all." So no, you didn't blow my theory out of the water. And thanks for the history lesson. But stick to the debate; I wasn't talking about affirmative action. I am actually opposed to race-based affirmative action. I said the Civil Rights Act. And what are you even talking about? Since when can "you make a company hire a less qualified candidate on the basis of race?" And thanks also for suggesting I look up "capital accumulation." FYI, I am an econ & business graduate (UC Berkeley) and a lawyer (UCLA Law). I'm well versed in economic theory. But the POINT was that in a "Libertopia," the Civil Rights Act would not have passed. Unless you think MLK did not have a valid purpose, you should not applaud that notion. Victims of Hurricane Katrina would have all drowned (FEMA would not exist). Saying that I am "the epitome of the causes of ... racism and hatred" is some of the most ignorant, irresponsible name-calling I've seen yet on this board. Oh, and Pit Bull: I guarantee you the ACLU does NOT support discriminatory hiring practices, which Libs would warmly embrace. Free speech is one thing, but it has well-defined limits. Read up on First Amendment jurisprudence before you write back.
DonkeyDude | 04/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
DonkeyDude, affirmative action "makes a company hire a less qualified candidate on the basis of race"!!!! What did you think it did?!?! How is my statement that you create racism and hatred ignorant? What did you start a debate about? Racism? Sexism? Hell DonkeyDude, people can't get over any differences with this bombardment of useless statements from the media and the likes of people such as yourself. You create racism and hatred with statements like these. You make a generalization about people who support a party that only wants less government. In no way, shape, or form do Libertarians support racism. Also if you were an economics major, then you would know how the government is sinking the economy. Generalizations are very flawed and ignorant DonkeyDude, and that's exactly what you are doing. Victims of Katrina would have drowned? Wow, the government did a great job handling that! You place little faith in humanity, and place it in the government. I know my friends, family, community, church, neighbors, etc. are far more sympathetic than the government could ever be.
ShawnF | 04/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
How have people voted on this "debate" yet? The other side hasn't even responded.
One for the Road | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
One more point that I would like to make. If Libertarians are so racist, why would we want to abolish the "War on Drugs" which has single-handedly alienated African Americans? A study by the Justice Policy Institute shows that, although blacks and whites possess and sell illegal drugs at about the same rate, blacks are ten times as likely to be sent to jail on drug charges. Also in a Ramussen poll from October 2007 Ron Paul received 33 percent of the black vote in a general election against Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton! In the words of Ron Paul "racism is a collectivist idea, you see people in groups. A civil libertarian like myself sees people as important individuals." Also in the words of Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder defending Libertarians "when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that, I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform."
ShawnF | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Shawn, if you are taking the LSAT anytime soon, you may want to brush up on your logic skills. Libs being against the war on drugs does not mean that they are or aren't racist. It just fits into their general philosophy that government should be almost nonexistent. And as for the affirmative action thing - which, again, I was not addressing here - DOES NOT "MAKE" A COMPANY HIRE ANYBODY!! You'll learn this in law school, but compulsory affirmative action does not exist in the workplace, except in rare instances where a company is specifically remedying demonstrable past discrimination, which hardly happens today. You are thinking of school admissions, or perhaps the completely voluntary (PR-based) hiring decisions of private companies. The funny thing about Libertarians is that you are so axiomatic. You can never answer a question directly, but you always rely on platitudes like those mentioned on this page. Here, some Lib -- any of you -- answer this: Is this country better because the Civil Rights Act was passed? Why or why not?
DonkeyDude | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
And whether the government did a good job or not (agreed, they did not) in the wake of Katrina, surely you can't deny that FEMA did some good, helped some people. That was a weak but easily recognizable example. I can choose from millions of other instances where the government has stepped in to rescue people, or help shoulder the burden of certain people impacted by tragedy. My point is really that we should have some optimal level of government for the purpose of taking care of those who are least fortunate among us. If that sounds like hate speech and ignorant racism to you, then I suggest you find another career path.
DonkeyDude | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Well, they don't necessarily believe that private discrimination is ok. that isn't worded very well. They believe that every person should be able to openly express their belief but this would be true whether the belief was discriminatory or progressive. They certainly don't try to influence people towards discriminatory. So they are equally concerned with the rights of those that are protesting the "Jews need not apply sign". Perhaps, the majority of them can be fairly called "narrow-minded elitists from priviledged white backgrounds", but as far as the narrow-minded goes this can just as easily be said about a poor man. They are just as likely to be just as self-involved. Probably more so, given the lives they have to lead. And you can just as easily make the argument that those who believe the government can efficiently solve all the problems concerning racism and poverty in this country are just as guilty in ignoring the harsh realities of the world. If those things are going to truly be solved it is going to take a massive social movement, not political reform. That would come after. It's not that you don't make some good points. But i think you went for shock value and it turned a lot of people off. It would have been better just to say the libretarians are unrealistic and fail to address many important issues.
Skipper04 | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Well, they don't necessarily believe that private discrimination is ok. that isn't worded very well. They believe that every person should be able to openly express their belief but this would be true whether the belief was discriminatory or progressive. They certainly don't try to influence people towards discriminatory. So they are equally concerned with the rights of those that are protesting the "Jews need not apply sign". Perhaps, the majority of them can be fairly called "narrow-minded elitists from priviledged white backgrounds", but as far as the narrow-minded goes this can just as easily be said about a poor man. They are just as likely to be just as self-involved. Probably more so, given the lives they have to lead. And you can just as easily make the argument that those who believe the government can efficiently solve all the problems concerning racism and poverty in this country are just as guilty in ignoring the harsh realities of the world. If those things are going to truly be solved it is going to take a massive social movement, not political reform. That would come after. It's not that you don't make some good points. But i think you went for shock value and it turned a lot of people off. It would have been better just to say the libretarians are unrealistic and fail to address many important issues.
Skipper04 | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
It is easier to attack my position when you mischaracterize it. I am not talking about any of the following things: 1) Affirmative action; 2) The ACLU's position on anything; Shawn's prospects at a Top Tier school. Answer the questions I posed in my second-to-last comment. And/or address the points I made in my debate point (which has not even received a rebuttal but is losing in votes somehow).
DonkeyDude | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
DonkeyDude wins, based on his comments in this section, but I'd like to see an actual back and forth between him and theandrewwest. This is lame.
One for the Road | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Personally, I agree that the country is better off because of the civil rights laws, to answer DD's question. And yes, some minimal level of social services (or even FEMA) is OK. Since that is the point of this debate, I'll give that to you. Libertarians won't acknowledge that because their views are a theoretical house of cards. But I do agree with them that the federal government clearly is too big and too involved in business.
One for the Road | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
It's true; Libertarians do not answer questions such as the ones you posed. There is no point debating them about it. Civil rights laws and social services are just a couple of the issues their ideology refutes. They wouldn't regulate monopolistic behavior. They would allow people to discriminate on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. When you point out these flaws, they always say, "Well Strict Libertarianism says this..." or "Conservative Libertarianism says that.." They slice and dice their ideology into the least offensive subsets to try to skirt the issues. But Donkey Dude, you were foolish to use the words "racist" and "sexist." Those words set Libertarians off. Just look at all the agitated name-calling that ensued.
sallyjames | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
See latest argument. Is that still too much "hyperbole," Andrew?
DonkeyDude | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Space constraints kept my points to a minimum, without an overarching theme. But suffice it to say that Libs support many radical theories -- NONE of which have ever been tested to evaluate their actual effects -- that essentially leave each to his own. It is Social Darwinism, with the hope of private charity thrown in. While I do not claim that Libs are racist or sexist, my point is that many of their (theoretical) policies have the potential to adversely impact minorities (who tend to live in poorer areas and are per capita the largest recipients of social services), and women and children (especially in poorer areas). It is a privileged mentality, because anyone who has that mentality has already "made it." And Shawn, despite your "poor" background, you are supposedly going to law school. News flash: you've made it. Congratulations. Screw those who haven't.
DonkeyDude | 04/16/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
Come on "theandrewwest"! Give it to him! I am dying here. Are you going to let this liberal freak walk on Libertarians? I want to take the challenge!!!
oulala | 04/15/08
Report Offensive Comment